Yes, I know. I realised after I typed the previous that I'd not explained properly. I meant to say "proper" lenses like primes. I was too tired and couldn't be bothered to clarify as I was using the fiddly tablet. :D I still use the DSLRs for stuff like macro because I do actually have the right lenses but the m43 is fab for street work as the long zoom and silent mode is excellent and it all goes in my handbag. 'orse for courses. :)

Yes, I know. I realised after I typed the previous that I'd not explained properly. I meant to say "proper" lenses like primes. I was too tired and couldn't be bothered to clarify as I was using the fiddly tablet. I still use the DSLRs for stuff like macro because I do actually have the right lenses but the m43 is fab for street work as the long zoom and silent mode is excellent and it all goes in my handbag. 'orse for courses.

As someone mentioned recently in another thread, the general imaging capabilities of m4/3 would compare favourably against high-end cameras of five or six years ago - especially if you have some decent glass to go with them. DoF between 35mm and m4/3 is a fairly significant difference, but from APSc to 4/3, not so much ditto on high ISO. AP said in its recent review of the EM1 something along the lines of expecting a stop difference in noise control (advantage >APSc) - I would expect some advantage (that's physics), but in all the tests I've seen, I just can't see that it's as much as a full stop.'ve been pleasantly surprised by the ISO 6400 results from my EM1 (just incidental, so far) and I'd be slightly hesitant to use my 5dII at that setting. That camera is of course a good generation older, but not seeing massive differences (at modest sizes at least), makes me very happy with the weight advantage.
One thing that's really surprised me withe the EM1 is how whisper-quiet the shutter is - the focus confirm beep is more audible. In the main, that is a nice advantage.

As someone mentioned recently in another thread, the general imaging capabilities of m4/3 would compare favourably against high-end cameras of five or six years ago - especially if you have some decent glass to go with them. DoF between 35mm and m4/3 is a fairly significant difference, but from APSc to 4/3, not so much ditto on high ISO. AP said in its recent review of the EM1 something along the lines of expecting a stop difference in noise control (advantage >APSc) - I would expect some advantage (that's physics), but in all the tests I've seen, I just can't see that it's as much as a full stop.'ve been pleasantly surprised by the ISO 6400 results from my EM1 (just incidental, so far) and I'd be slightly hesitant to use my 5dII at that setting. That camera is of course a good generation older, but not seeing massive differences (at modest sizes at least), makes me very happy with the weight advantage.

One thing that's really surprised me withe the EM1 is how whisper-quiet the shutter is - the focus confirm beep is more audible. In the main, that is a nice advantage.

[quote]As someone mentioned recently in another thread, the general imaging capabilities of m4/3 would compare favourably against high-end cameras of five or six years ago - especially if you have some decent glass to go with them. DoF between 35mm and m4/3 is a fairly significant difference, but from APSc to 4/3, not so much ditto on high ISO. AP said in its recent review of the EM1 something along the lines of expecting a stop difference in noise control (advantage >APSc) - I would expect some advantage (that's physics), but in all the tests I've seen, I just can't see that it's as much as a full stop.'ve been pleasantly surprised by the ISO 6400 results from my EM1 (just incidental, so far) and I'd be slightly hesitant to use my 5dII at that setting. That camera is of course a good generation older, but not seeing massive differences (at modest sizes at least), makes me very happy with the weight advantage.
One thing that's really surprised me withe the EM1 is how whisper-quiet the shutter is - the focus confirm beep is more audible. In the main, that is a nice advantage.[/quote]
Yes the shutters are nice with the EM camera`s, how are you finding that 50-200.

Quote:As someone mentioned recently in another thread, the general imaging capabilities of m4/3 would compare favourably against high-end cameras of five or six years ago - especially if you have some decent glass to go with them. DoF between 35mm and m4/3 is a fairly significant difference, but from APSc to 4/3, not so much ditto on high ISO. AP said in its recent review of the EM1 something along the lines of expecting a stop difference in noise control (advantage >APSc) - I would expect some advantage (that's physics), but in all the tests I've seen, I just can't see that it's as much as a full stop.'ve been pleasantly surprised by the ISO 6400 results from my EM1 (just incidental, so far) and I'd be slightly hesitant to use my 5dII at that setting. That camera is of course a good generation older, but not seeing massive differences (at modest sizes at least), makes me very happy with the weight advantage.

One thing that's really surprised me withe the EM1 is how whisper-quiet the shutter is - the focus confirm beep is more audible. In the main, that is a nice advantage.

Yes the shutters are nice with the EM camera`s, how are you finding that 50-200.

[quote]Yes, I know. I realised after I typed the previous that I'd not explained properly. I meant to say "proper" lenses like primes. I was too tired and couldn't be bothered to clarify as I was using the fiddly tablet. :D I still use the DSLRs for stuff like macro because I do actually have the right lenses but the m43 is fab for street work as the long zoom and silent mode is excellent and it all goes in my handbag. 'orse for courses. :)[/quote]
Some of the primes are not too expensive, the Panasonic 14mm although not particularly the fastest of primes is a lovely cheap little lens and the Sigma 19mm is pretty good as well, both are great street lenses.

Quote:Yes, I know. I realised after I typed the previous that I'd not explained properly. I meant to say "proper" lenses like primes. I was too tired and couldn't be bothered to clarify as I was using the fiddly tablet. I still use the DSLRs for stuff like macro because I do actually have the right lenses but the m43 is fab for street work as the long zoom and silent mode is excellent and it all goes in my handbag. 'orse for courses.

Some of the primes are not too expensive, the Panasonic 14mm although not particularly the fastest of primes is a lovely cheap little lens and the Sigma 19mm is pretty good as well, both are great street lenses.

[quote]
Yes the shutters are nice with the EM camera`s, how are you finding that 50-200.[/quote]
I thought it would be waiting for me when I arrived at work this lunchtime, but the provided tracking number for 24 hour delivery showed it had been in and out of the Rotherham depot since Tuesday.
I haven't had a reply to my question of what was going on, but it arrived late in the afternoon.
That means I've only had chance to test indoors in poor light (going to ISO6400 so pretty low). It did hunt a bit at distance in dark areas but refocused fairly quickly on lighter subjects.
On the whole I would say pretty acceptable although nothing like the lightning fast CAF of most of the dedicated M4/3 lenses. We'll see how it does in normal light - I'm fairly optimistic.
It is a sizeable, quite heavy lens, but not the size of my 70-200L, but with nearly twice the range and only slowing to f3.5 at the 400mm equivalent end. If I want to travel light I still have that tiny, featherweight 14-140. If I want range and high quality, I'll pack the bigger lens. Incidentally, it did come along with a very nice dedicated padded case.

Quote:

Yes the shutters are nice with the EM camera`s, how are you finding that 50-200.

I thought it would be waiting for me when I arrived at work this lunchtime, but the provided tracking number for 24 hour delivery showed it had been in and out of the Rotherham depot since Tuesday.

I haven't had a reply to my question of what was going on, but it arrived late in the afternoon.

That means I've only had chance to test indoors in poor light (going to ISO6400 so pretty low). It did hunt a bit at distance in dark areas but refocused fairly quickly on lighter subjects.

On the whole I would say pretty acceptable although nothing like the lightning fast CAF of most of the dedicated M4/3 lenses. We'll see how it does in normal light - I'm fairly optimistic.

It is a sizeable, quite heavy lens, but not the size of my 70-200L, but with nearly twice the range and only slowing to f3.5 at the 400mm equivalent end. If I want to travel light I still have that tiny, featherweight 14-140. If I want range and high quality, I'll pack the bigger lens. Incidentally, it did come along with a very nice dedicated padded case.

That 50-200mm has always been a popular lens, not the fastest at focusing but it will pretty much nail it most of the time.
4/3 had two levels of pro grade, pro grade and super pro grade, most lenses at the highest level though are super expensive.
Any pro grade lens is a least of the level of Canon L.
Just noticed how much the Olympus 17mm is now selling for on Amazon, aprox £350, its not a lot dearer than the new Panasonic 20mm, but its all metal and has that snap focus thingy, very tempting :)

That 50-200mm has always been a popular lens, not the fastest at focusing but it will pretty much nail it most of the time.

4/3 had two levels of pro grade, pro grade and super pro grade, most lenses at the highest level though are super expensive.

Any pro grade lens is a least of the level of Canon L.

Just noticed how much the Olympus 17mm is now selling for on Amazon, aprox £350, its not a lot dearer than the new Panasonic 20mm, but its all metal and has that snap focus thingy, very tempting

Sincere apologises for this long message but I do need to cover the points in the hope of getting some good, well informed advice from you that know.
I have read with interest this thread and also the other longer one elsewhere here on EPZ and know there are lots of experience here. I would welcome your unbiased views on the following.
I too have be agonising over which CSC to buy. I don't intend such to be a replacement for my Canon kit but what I want is just one camera to take with me when I am out and about with the wife. I usually just take a 5D Mk3 with a 24-70 2.8 fitted, but it's bulky when I am in town for example.
My photographic interests lean towards landscape, street and people. I am not into natural history or sport
A month of so back I went off to feel and, I thought, buy a OMD-M5. I was disappointed though as the camera felt very small in the hand and I did not like the EVF.
A very good local pro has bought a Fuji X-E1 and thinks it is great and finds it "very liberating" when he is just out and about. He says that all his pro kit is great for work but finds that the Fuji has put "fun back into photography". I have handled the camera and like its feel.
The Fuji 100S has great reviews and whilst not a CSC camera I thought that this might be a good option. I have tried thus and also like it in the hand and it's EVF. But for me the problem is that that the fixed focal length is no good for portraiture.
So here is my quandary. The new OMD-E1 is apparently bigger and fits better in the hand and has an improved EVF and also the kit lens seems to give me a variable focal length comparable to the 28-70, which I find suits most of my needs. On the other hand the new Fuji X-E2 looks like being a good camera also,although the build quality is not comparable to the OMD. Perhaps waiting for the undoubted release of a newer Fuji X Pro maybe a consideration? I am also conscious of the fact that none of you mention the Fuji so perhaps this in itself means that you don't consider it in the same league as the Olympus or Panasonic.
So given all that I have said, do you have any advice based on your own direct experience ANC knowledge.
Thanks for any hep you can give me here.

Sincere apologises for this long message but I do need to cover the points in the hope of getting some good, well informed advice from you that know.

I have read with interest this thread and also the other longer one elsewhere here on EPZ and know there are lots of experience here. I would welcome your unbiased views on the following.

I too have be agonising over which CSC to buy. I don't intend such to be a replacement for my Canon kit but what I want is just one camera to take with me when I am out and about with the wife. I usually just take a 5D Mk3 with a 24-70 2.8 fitted, but it's bulky when I am in town for example.

My photographic interests lean towards landscape, street and people. I am not into natural history or sport

A month of so back I went off to feel and, I thought, buy a OMD-M5. I was disappointed though as the camera felt very small in the hand and I did not like the EVF.

A very good local pro has bought a Fuji X-E1 and thinks it is great and finds it "very liberating" when he is just out and about. He says that all his pro kit is great for work but finds that the Fuji has put "fun back into photography". I have handled the camera and like its feel.

The Fuji 100S has great reviews and whilst not a CSC camera I thought that this might be a good option. I have tried thus and also like it in the hand and it's EVF. But for me the problem is that that the fixed focal length is no good for portraiture.

So here is my quandary. The new OMD-E1 is apparently bigger and fits better in the hand and has an improved EVF and also the kit lens seems to give me a variable focal length comparable to the 28-70, which I find suits most of my needs. On the other hand the new Fuji X-E2 looks like being a good camera also,although the build quality is not comparable to the OMD. Perhaps waiting for the undoubted release of a newer Fuji X Pro maybe a consideration? I am also conscious of the fact that none of you mention the Fuji so perhaps this in itself means that you don't consider it in the same league as the Olympus or Panasonic.

So given all that I have said, do you have any advice based on your own direct experience ANC knowledge.

[b]Re GX7[/b]
I used to have to travel a lot and taking my normal kit - a Canon 5D11 and a Canon 60D was impractical so I tried my wife's Panasonic G1 liked it and bought a G3. The IQ I found was marginally less than the 60D but the mono images converted from Raw were really very pleasing . I could also use Nikon and other lenses left in my drawer from film days with a converter. I also was able to buy a virtually new Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for about half price, more of this later
I then felt that I needed to rationalise, the Full frame wasn't going and the G3 wasn't quite there, the 60D was a bit smaller than the 5D11 but not significantly so. I had too many lenses for different purposes. So what to do? I had the same issue , I looked at the Olympus EM5, the GH3, the G6 and wondered about the GX7 - couldn't get my hands on one. I shot with them all too and compared images using the same lens, the Voigtlander. I loved the Olympus but found it was just ergonomically not right for me, shape of hands or something, it felt beautifully made but it also felt insecure, the image quality however was excellent. I loved the ergonomics of the G6 but wasn't totally sold on the IQ, the GH3 was fine but not a thing that really spoke to me for some reason. So I thought I'd wait and see what the GX7 was like, the fact it had an EVF but was also compact was appealing. I was told by camera shops - " Pre bought - probably won't see one of these until November."
Then at the beginning of October I happened to be in a shop and they had one, I played with it and it was ergonomically fine , I found the EVF exceptionally good- especially since it can be moved up and down - great for macro. What sold me was the focus peaking with the Voigtlander Lens - this is an act of genius, it made visual focussing with a manual lens easier than simple.
Outcomes? I have sold my 60D with no regrets. A month on the GX7 has already earned its crust ( images accepted by Stock Agencies) For pixel peepers I am sure that at A2 the 60D would give better detail but at A3 the IQ is identical to my eye. It is easy in the hand, used with the Voigtlander, or the 20mm 1.7 ( i have both for different purposes) the images are startlingly good, I have done some macro work with extension tubes and while very fiddly with patience the results are eye opening, I have used it with an ancient Nikon 55 3.5 micro and the results are very pleasing, I also use it with a 14mm and a 45-175 as well as the 45mm Olympus. I have also used it with my wife's Leica Panny 45 macro which I may possibly slip into my camera bag when she is not looking.
[b]Good bits?[/b]
IQ- sensor quality seems much improved, tones in B+W are great
Focus Peaking - sensational ( Unless you are shooting something blue!!!! - It shows focus with blue delineation around edges)
Ergonomic handling - great, sits in the hand nicely, seems to be well built has survived my Dog getting tangled in the strap and taking it walkies.
HDR - works and is fun
Wifi - works though I don't use it a lot.
I can take this places I cannot take any of my other kit
In camera anti shake - works brilliantly with manual lenses- I'm getting on and that matters to me
[b]Bad bits[/b]
Nose drift- If you have the back display on and bring the camera to eye level to use the EVF you can find that the point of focus has gone with your nose and you are focussing at an extreme of the viewfinder - I just use the EVF and turn the back on to Information rather than live and just use the back display when I an not using the EVF . Other M3/4 have the same issue . ( I suppose I could get a nose job...)
EVF is very clear but does not show accurate colours, this may be something I can adjust , not a vital issue but useful to check what the final colours are.
[b]Jury still out[/b]
JPG V RAW - So Lightroom does not automatically convert the GX7's RAW files nor does my main image manipulation programme - Aperture , have to use Adobe RAW converter and bring the images in. I can do without that, but doubtless there will be later plug ins to enable this . That said while I nearly always shoot in RAW the in camera JPG quality iseems to be exceptional and I am not sure having tried both what the true advantage is in shooting in RAW. ( While for instance with the EOS 5D11 the reason to do so is obvious) I don't seem to be getting that much more information out in RAW, but as I say the jury is still out.
Tipping back display, good resolution, useful possibly for candid at waist level? Or perhaps macro ? But otherwise.....really not sure about this, I prefer those that close to protect themselves and those that swing out. But perhaps I'll get warm to this later.
[b]Summary[/b]
The GX7 is a "keeper"
I tend to use primes for best quality and handling and for both I have fallen into comfortable and confident use with this camera faster than most cameras I have used. It isn't ideal for wildlife because of the EVF but it is better than any other M4/3 I have used for that . I think the crunch is that I am taking pictures with the GX7 that people want to see, keep and some want to buy.
The " yes but it is not quite up to the IQ quality of a 1.6 crop SLR " is a much harder statement to make outside of the exactitude of the pixel peeper. Would I be totally confident to use use this camera alone for all of my work? Probably not. Yet. Probably. But the enjoyment factor means that I am currently taking 80% of my images with it, which speaks volumes.
At some point I'll do an article on the camera on my blog with images
Steve

Re GX7

I used to have to travel a lot and taking my normal kit - a Canon 5D11 and a Canon 60D was impractical so I tried my wife's Panasonic G1 liked it and bought a G3. The IQ I found was marginally less than the 60D but the mono images converted from Raw were really very pleasing . I could also use Nikon and other lenses left in my drawer from film days with a converter. I also was able to buy a virtually new Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for about half price, more of this later

I then felt that I needed to rationalise, the Full frame wasn't going and the G3 wasn't quite there, the 60D was a bit smaller than the 5D11 but not significantly so. I had too many lenses for different purposes. So what to do? I had the same issue , I looked at the Olympus EM5, the GH3, the G6 and wondered about the GX7 - couldn't get my hands on one. I shot with them all too and compared images using the same lens, the Voigtlander. I loved the Olympus but found it was just ergonomically not right for me, shape of hands or something, it felt beautifully made but it also felt insecure, the image quality however was excellent. I loved the ergonomics of the G6 but wasn't totally sold on the IQ, the GH3 was fine but not a thing that really spoke to me for some reason. So I thought I'd wait and see what the GX7 was like, the fact it had an EVF but was also compact was appealing. I was told by camera shops - " Pre bought - probably won't see one of these until November."

Then at the beginning of October I happened to be in a shop and they had one, I played with it and it was ergonomically fine , I found the EVF exceptionally good- especially since it can be moved up and down - great for macro. What sold me was the focus peaking with the Voigtlander Lens - this is an act of genius, it made visual focussing with a manual lens easier than simple.

Outcomes? I have sold my 60D with no regrets. A month on the GX7 has already earned its crust ( images accepted by Stock Agencies) For pixel peepers I am sure that at A2 the 60D would give better detail but at A3 the IQ is identical to my eye. It is easy in the hand, used with the Voigtlander, or the 20mm 1.7 ( i have both for different purposes) the images are startlingly good, I have done some macro work with extension tubes and while very fiddly with patience the results are eye opening, I have used it with an ancient Nikon 55 3.5 micro and the results are very pleasing, I also use it with a 14mm and a 45-175 as well as the 45mm Olympus. I have also used it with my wife's Leica Panny 45 macro which I may possibly slip into my camera bag when she is not looking.

Good bits?
IQ- sensor quality seems much improved, tones in B+W are great
Focus Peaking - sensational ( Unless you are shooting something blue!!!! - It shows focus with blue delineation around edges)
Ergonomic handling - great, sits in the hand nicely, seems to be well built has survived my Dog getting tangled in the strap and taking it walkies.
HDR - works and is fun
Wifi - works though I don't use it a lot.
I can take this places I cannot take any of my other kit
In camera anti shake - works brilliantly with manual lenses- I'm getting on and that matters to me

Bad bits
Nose drift- If you have the back display on and bring the camera to eye level to use the EVF you can find that the point of focus has gone with your nose and you are focussing at an extreme of the viewfinder - I just use the EVF and turn the back on to Information rather than live and just use the back display when I an not using the EVF . Other M3/4 have the same issue . ( I suppose I could get a nose job...)
EVF is very clear but does not show accurate colours, this may be something I can adjust , not a vital issue but useful to check what the final colours are.

Jury still out
JPG V RAW - So Lightroom does not automatically convert the GX7's RAW files nor does my main image manipulation programme - Aperture , have to use Adobe RAW converter and bring the images in. I can do without that, but doubtless there will be later plug ins to enable this . That said while I nearly always shoot in RAW the in camera JPG quality iseems to be exceptional and I am not sure having tried both what the true advantage is in shooting in RAW. ( While for instance with the EOS 5D11 the reason to do so is obvious) I don't seem to be getting that much more information out in RAW, but as I say the jury is still out.

Tipping back display, good resolution, useful possibly for candid at waist level? Or perhaps macro ? But otherwise.....really not sure about this, I prefer those that close to protect themselves and those that swing out. But perhaps I'll get warm to this later.

Summary

The GX7 is a "keeper"

I tend to use primes for best quality and handling and for both I have fallen into comfortable and confident use with this camera faster than most cameras I have used. It isn't ideal for wildlife because of the EVF but it is better than any other M4/3 I have used for that . I think the crunch is that I am taking pictures with the GX7 that people want to see, keep and some want to buy.

The " yes but it is not quite up to the IQ quality of a 1.6 crop SLR " is a much harder statement to make outside of the exactitude of the pixel peeper. Would I be totally confident to use use this camera alone for all of my work? Probably not. Yet. Probably. But the enjoyment factor means that I am currently taking 80% of my images with it, which speaks volumes.

[quote]
So here is my quandary. The new OMD-E1 is apparently bigger and fits better in the hand and has an improved EVF and also the kit lens seems to give me a variable focal length comparable to the 28-70, which I find suits most of my needs. On the other hand the new Fuji X-E2 looks like being a good camera also,although the build quality is not comparable to the OMD. Perhaps waiting for the undoubted release of a newer Fuji X Pro maybe a consideration? I am also conscious of the fact that none of you mention the Fuji so perhaps this in itself means that you don't consider it in the same league as the Olympus or Panasonic.
So given all that I have said, do you have any advice based on your own direct experience ANC knowledge.
Thanks for any hep you can give me here.[/quote]
Hi Roy - I can't give you any advice on the Fujis other than what I've heard - and that's that they're very good cameras and in terms of IQ will be up there with amongst the best of the APSc format, so I'm not going to try and denigrate them as a choice.
What I can tell you is that the EM1 is a very well built camera that handles extremely well - it has a large grip that's enhanced by the portrait addition, but not to the extent that it feels it needs it (whilst many seem to think the additional grip(s) are almost 'essential' for the EM5). The Pro lens is also very high quality and will actually give you the equivalent focal range of 24-80mm - one thing to remember is that whilst it's bright and sharp, it won't limit DoF to the same extent as your f2.8 on your full frame camera, but there are plenty of reasonable primes that will allow you to do that for portraiture/candids. Which brings us to another reason the m4/3 cameras are so popular around here - there's a wider choice of lenses available in this format than any other mirrorless system - now further enhanced by the fact that the EM1's on-sensor PDAF allows for useful employment of older 4/3 lenses in autofocus with an adapter.
This further leads us to the other big advantage of the m4/3 standard, which is not the size of the bodies (there are very compact bodies, but the EM1 or the GH3 are both larger in order to offer better handling), but the size of the lenses. Whether you're going for standard range zooms, primes or (especially) short to medium telephoto, there's a big size weight advantage even over APSc.
My judgement is that any difference in IQ between APSc and m4/3 is pretty marginal and isn't going to make much if any difference even in more extreme circumstances (where you'd want very, very large prints or low noise in very dim conditions and you've got your 35mm format for that anyway, right?)
Those are my reasons for liking M4/3 - I also use a 5DII, but not often these days!
We're all different of course - there's no such thing as a perfect camera and different makes/formats suit different people (otherwise there'd be a lot of manufacturers going out of business and a few left standing wouldn't be great for any of us).
Any choice you make is a compromise, whether it's weight/quality/flexibility or whatever. For me the m4/3 format in general and the EM1 in particular offers the best balance of quality, handling and size/weight. EPZ and a lot of its members seem to be moving to that view.
You don't have to agree to stay in the club! ;)

Quote:

So here is my quandary. The new OMD-E1 is apparently bigger and fits better in the hand and has an improved EVF and also the kit lens seems to give me a variable focal length comparable to the 28-70, which I find suits most of my needs. On the other hand the new Fuji X-E2 looks like being a good camera also,although the build quality is not comparable to the OMD. Perhaps waiting for the undoubted release of a newer Fuji X Pro maybe a consideration? I am also conscious of the fact that none of you mention the Fuji so perhaps this in itself means that you don't consider it in the same league as the Olympus or Panasonic.

So given all that I have said, do you have any advice based on your own direct experience ANC knowledge.

Thanks for any hep you can give me here.

Hi Roy - I can't give you any advice on the Fujis other than what I've heard - and that's that they're very good cameras and in terms of IQ will be up there with amongst the best of the APSc format, so I'm not going to try and denigrate them as a choice.

What I can tell you is that the EM1 is a very well built camera that handles extremely well - it has a large grip that's enhanced by the portrait addition, but not to the extent that it feels it needs it (whilst many seem to think the additional grip(s) are almost 'essential' for the EM5). The Pro lens is also very high quality and will actually give you the equivalent focal range of 24-80mm - one thing to remember is that whilst it's bright and sharp, it won't limit DoF to the same extent as your f2.8 on your full frame camera, but there are plenty of reasonable primes that will allow you to do that for portraiture/candids. Which brings us to another reason the m4/3 cameras are so popular around here - there's a wider choice of lenses available in this format than any other mirrorless system - now further enhanced by the fact that the EM1's on-sensor PDAF allows for useful employment of older 4/3 lenses in autofocus with an adapter.

This further leads us to the other big advantage of the m4/3 standard, which is not the size of the bodies (there are very compact bodies, but the EM1 or the GH3 are both larger in order to offer better handling), but the size of the lenses. Whether you're going for standard range zooms, primes or (especially) short to medium telephoto, there's a big size weight advantage even over APSc.

My judgement is that any difference in IQ between APSc and m4/3 is pretty marginal and isn't going to make much if any difference even in more extreme circumstances (where you'd want very, very large prints or low noise in very dim conditions and you've got your 35mm format for that anyway, right?)

Those are my reasons for liking M4/3 - I also use a 5DII, but not often these days!

We're all different of course - there's no such thing as a perfect camera and different makes/formats suit different people (otherwise there'd be a lot of manufacturers going out of business and a few left standing wouldn't be great for any of us).

Any choice you make is a compromise, whether it's weight/quality/flexibility or whatever. For me the m4/3 format in general and the EM1 in particular offers the best balance of quality, handling and size/weight. EPZ and a lot of its members seem to be moving to that view.

I would definitely go with M4/3, its not just the camera you need to be considering, its the system as a whole, and with m4/3 it is now pretty extensive.
I have a soft spot for the Fuji`s, they have started building a nice system with more lenses on the way, if you can find any X-E1`s still available with the original kit lens, there worth having, there were some good deals going on these.
I guess you want something with a built in viewfinder so check out the GH2, G5, G6, GX7 and EM5 there all good, if a built in viewfinder is not essential add the EP5 to the list, its newer than the EM5 and has a number of advantages.

I would definitely go with M4/3, its not just the camera you need to be considering, its the system as a whole, and with m4/3 it is now pretty extensive.

I have a soft spot for the Fuji`s, they have started building a nice system with more lenses on the way, if you can find any X-E1`s still available with the original kit lens, there worth having, there were some good deals going on these.

I guess you want something with a built in viewfinder so check out the GH2, G5, G6, GX7 and EM5 there all good, if a built in viewfinder is not essential add the EP5 to the list, its newer than the EM5 and has a number of advantages.